You didn't mention what mount system you are using, and that makes a difference in the ULW. For starters, the Weatherby lightweight action used for the .338-06 is rather long. The Weatherby/Talley system, which I use, puts the mount spacing rather longish as well. The Leuopld 2.5-8x just makes it with 1/4" or so to spare.... so eye relief could become a problem especially with heavy clothing as you don't have any flexibilty in back/forth scope positioning with that system. With Leupold mounts/rings there is more room for back/forth scope positioning, but not much more.

The Leupold 2-7x33 (VX1 or VX2) is very similar, and has the added detriment of placing the power selector ring very close to rear ring. When the rear ring is tight (as you need on the the ULW in .338-06), the power selcotr ring becomes difficult to move, especially with gloves or sweaty fingers. There is no flange in front of the power ring to make a physical separation from the ring, as there is on the Vari-X III (now VX3). Not good for hunting on this rifle.

The Leupold 3-9x33 Compact is better, especially if you use Leupold mounts/rings as I do with this scope on my .25-06 ULW.

The VX-1 and VX-2 3-9x40 scopes are very good and mount well, but they look out of place on the ULW and are maybe more than you need on a .338-06.

My own SBGM .338-06 has the Leupold 1.75-6x32 scope. This scope has much more forgiving tube length than the 2.5-8x32 or 2-7x33 scopes, and positions better on the rifle. It is also all I have needed out to 270 yards on a variety of animals, and the 1.75x came in handy while stalking in heavy bush. Mine has the heavy duplex which in retrospect is a bit too heavy for fine work. Here are a couple of victims of this combo, the Blesbok at 270Y and the Eland at 220Y, both killed with the Sierra 250 SBT at MV 2540 fps:

Well,

I`ve had the Nikon on the 338/06 for almost 3 months now, and have shot it several times at the range. I have to say that I think the Nikon Monarch is close to equal with the VXIII. I do prefer the appearance of the Leupold a little better, but optically, I can`t see much difference. I just picked up a new Kimber 84M in .243 that I need a scope for now. I`m thinking of a Kahles 2-7. Any opinions on them? Also, how the heck do you say Kahles?

I had used Leupold for a long time. After the switch to Nikon, I will not go back to Leupold. The Nikon Monarchs are brighter, stronger, and more appealing to most.

There are always debates on the best scopes but, all I can say is I got a far better scope for alot less of a price.

You cant nock them until you try them.

I used to think Leupold was the best but, I have become very fond of Burris, Nikon, and Simmons Aetec in the last few years. I would strongly urge people to go the Nikon Monarch or Burris Fullfeild II route before pruchasing a Leupold. You get more scope for your buck.

Good Luck!

Reloader

I'd go with the 2.5X 8, the 1.75 X 6 or 2x7. You do not need more than that!

I've had really good luck with Burris Fulfield II's.

Heard, I have one w/ the Balistic Plex reticle, it is real nice. That 95% light transmision is not to shabby either. Not bad for a 197 dollar scope. Oh I didn't mention it came w/ a free spotting scope and shipping for both was only 10 bucks. Man, you cant hardly beat that.

That scope has handled the recoil of my lightweight 300WSM w/ hot loads nicely.

Reloader

Last fall I put a Cabela's Alaskan Guide 2-7 compact on my 338/06. Nice little scope, looked right, shot great. Leave it on 4, turn it down for the timber, and up for the prairie. Just about right for that cal.

Hoss,

I did exactly like you suggested on your 338/06. Mine is made on a Model 70 action, with a 24 inch barrel.

I tried several different scopes, but I found that I liked the Leupold 2 x 7 on mine. I am always a little different it seems, but I went with a 2 x 7 shot gun scope, because it was available in Matt Black at the time, AND was the only Leupold in that power range that was available in flat black.

I also got real use to the larger reticle in it, since I primarily use the rifle for Elk. The larger reticle sure does a good job in heavy cover and helps when the old eyesite ain't what she use to be.

I found it to be a good balance with that cartridge. Good luck with that Weatherby. I think you will become a lover of the 338/06. Most who have used them learn to love them.

Cheers
Seafire

My Weatherby 338-06 had a 3-9 Conquest and it worked fine on the rifle.
If I had it again (got traded for a sweet Dakota) I would probably put a 2-7 Kahles with a 4A or TDS reticle (sounds like "call-us"). Or if you can afford it put a Swarovski AV 3-10. The Swarovski is one of the lightest high quality scopes you can get.
I had an interesting experience shooting in a 100yd underground range. The range was a 6ft diameter tube with a motorized target that would travel as far out as 100yds. The target was lit by 1 small light pointed at it from about 10 feet in front of the target and gave an pretty dim view. I was using the bright orange rifle sight in targets with one target in the middle and 4 squares around the edges and 1 inch grids. I was shooting 3 different rifles and scopes. When shooting with a Vari-X III 2.5-8 I could see the orange boxes Ok but couldn't see the lines in the target at all. When shooting with the Zeiss 3x9-40 Conquest I could see the boxes and the lines of the 1 inch grid but the lines were a little fuzzy. With a Swarovski 3x10-40 I could see the boxes and the lines were sharply defined.
This experience may for may not directly relate to hunting but my eyes saw a very distinct differance in optical quality. Leupolds may be good, but Zeiss is better and Swarovski was the best.